Izzivi Prihodnosti (Aug 2024)
Temporary Protection and Continuation of Remote Work for the Country of Origin
Abstract
Research Question (RQ): Refugee status is denied to persons who cooperate with authorities of a country of origin. However, it is unclear whether this rule also applies to displaced persons, or whether Directive 2011/95/EU regulating subsidiary protection should be applied in their cases. Purpose: This research focuses on a legal situation of displaced persons who benefit from Directive 2001/55/EC regulating the EU temporary protection mechanism. This law can be activated in case of mass arrivals of persons in need of international protection. The research examines whether displaced persons can continue working for the authorities of their country of origin. Method: Dogmatic-legal analysis was used. Critical analysis of the law (1951 UN Refugee Convention, and EU law) was made. Historical method was used to support an interpretation of the text of that Convention with that treaty aims. Thanks to this, it was possible to deduce intentions of the drafters and first interpreters of the 1951 Refugee Convention from Travaux préparatoires and subsequent conclusions of the EXCOMM. Results: The 1951 Refugee Convention applies to persons who are unwilling or unable to be protected by their country of origin. However, incidental contacts with that state do not deprive these persons of protection. Directive 2001/55/EC does not contain an explicit reference to a need to terminate all contacts with a country of origin. Still, some relationships may contradict with the UN values. The asylum caseworker should be able to verify if these activities do not violate refugee law. Hence, the answer to the research questions depends on the scope of activities performed by a displaced person. Organization/Society: The answer to the research question would help to determine whether providing work for the authorities of a country of origin is always an obstacle to benefiting from temporary protection. Therefore, it can have an impact on the practice of public administration bodies regarding their approach to providing international protection. Originality: 28% of displaced persons in Poland work remotely in Ukraine. This innovative factor has not been noted in the context of other military conflicts, but the popularization of remote work increases the likelihood that persons seeking protection would not break their ties with a country of origin. Although an issue of a need to terminate relationship with that country has already been researched in literature, there are significant differences between the 1951 Refugee Convention and Directive 2001/55/EC. These differences have not yet been analyzed. Limitations / further research: A comparative analysis of the EU Member States’ national legislations could help to determine whether there are prospects for amending EU legislation to make it clear if work performed for authorities of a country of origin in the country where the contract is concluded can be used to deny and revoke temporary protection or to limit social assistance in case of persons who perform such work.
Keywords
